oyr89

Literally, every other thread on here goes like this or some variation of this.

'Liberals, why do you like to eat babies'

Then someone comments in the thread:

'Why is no liberal commenting? They're all hiding'

Then, a liberal comments:

'I don't eat babies'

And the thread devolves into insults usually directed at that user.

Then, someone else makes another bait thread.

Someone else remarks how no liberal is commenting.

Repeat.

And then you wonder why no liberal bothers to comment.

quote:

---

In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 56% of respondents said, "It’s likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 41% who say it’s ‘very likely.’”

---

That's Rasmussen. They have a massively R-tilted sample.

No other polling organization I've seen has anywhere close to that figure. According to YouGov, only 39% of Americans say that Biden did not win the election legitimately.

YouGov poll

quote:

---

I believe just about anyone the Rs throw against a kamala or Biden candidacy would win.

---

In the same poll, Trump's barely winning against Biden (Trump has a 2 point lead).

That's despite most respondents saying that they're worse off and the economy is getting worse.

That tells you either

a) How unpopular Trump is
b) How popular Biden is

and I'm guessing it's not B.

quote:

---

the recipe for success in any country any time any demographic

---

It's a demographic that votes heavily Democrat.

Only 28% of Asian voters voted for Trump.

72% of them voted for Biden.

quote:

---

We were a net exporter under Trump. Biden’s policies have directly contributed to the high prices.

---

We were barely a net exporter and only in 2020.

And we became a net exporter of petroleum in 2020 when consumption fell off a cliff due to COVID, not because of much else.

LINK

You're shifting your argument and now you're calling me idiotic?

It's one thing to argue that something is constitutional or not. It's another to argue that laws don't work and hence why we shouldn't have them.

Why are you this disingenuous?

quote:

---

Well they could, but they would be dismissed as idiotic, just you are being dismissed by several here. The law of the land says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

---

I mean:

Something that is constitutional can be made unconstitutional.

I'm fairly sure gun control advocates would be advocating for that, hence they could just as well argue that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society.

quote:

---

See above, idiot. Anything in the Constitution about the right of the people to murder other people? No? Well I’ll be damned.

---

See above. You've now changed your argument and I'm not sure you're smart enough to realize it.

A gun control advocate would probably say:

a) Constitutions can change
b) The constitution should change
c) Hence, having laws against gun ownership would show that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society

You're now invoking the constitution into an argument about whether laws work or whether laws don't work. And if we really want to go there, I'm sure gun control advocates would be advocating for changing the constitution as well.

But that's besides the point. You've now shifted your argument yet again. Do you not hear yourself?

First, you argued that laws don't work.

I pointed out then why don't we scrap laws.

You then argued that laws serve as a warning about behavior that crosses the line in civil society to the public.

I pointed out that a gun control advocate would argue that gun ownership is behavior that crosses the line in civil society.

You then tried to bring in the constitution when it wasn't your original point in the first place.

Either laws work or they don't work.

If laws don't work, then we should scrap them.

If laws serve as warning about what is acceptable in public society, gun control advocates can advocate for gun laws because they would see it as unacceptable in civil society.

You may argue that it's unconstitutional or whatever but this isn't your argument in the first place. That's a different argument altogether but I think you knew that.

The fact that you call me an idiot when you've been called out on your flawed logic and then tried to shift your argument to constitutionality :rotflmao:

quote:

---

That’s about enough idiocy for me today, thanks.

---

Well, the only idiocy here is that I've clearly pointed out a clear flaw in the logic.

quote:

---

Making constitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) serves the public in establishing what actions cross the line in a civil society. Making unconstitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) only serves to make criminals of the law abiding.

---

So gun control advocates could then argue that they believe gun ownership or gun ownership without regulation crosses a line in a civil society and it would be exactly akin to the argument for having murder on the books i.e. serving the public in establishing what type of gun ownership crosses the line.

That would completely defeat your logic because it's a dumb position to be arguing from. You've justified having murder as a law on the books in the exact same way a gun control advocate would justify to themselves about guns or gun regulation.

quote:

---

I guess you’d have to know whether I’m lawless, or law abiding, wouldn’t you?

---

I would but clearly, as you've put it, you are aware that killing me would cross the line in a civil society. A gun control advocate may suggest the same thing.

quote:

---

Is everyone honest?

---

I'm not sure how that answers the question.

If we've established that locks don't work as criminals will ignore them, we should not lock our doors.

I actually rather like your analogy of a lock = gun control.

If locks don't work, let's not lock our doors.

Do you lock your door?

Or are locks barriers or a psychological comfort?

And I don't think gun control to any significant extent will work when there are 400 million guns in the US. I'm not arguing for it, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the logic here.

quote:

---

No dumbass, I’m arguing against laws that violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. Especially when those laws do nothing whatsoever to address the problem.

---

Which is a completely different argument to suggesting laws don't work (which would suggest that we should scrap all laws in the first place).

quote:

---

Maybe because if there was no law against it, I could just murder you for trolling?

---

So laws do work then at preventing murder? Or don't they?

quote:

---

Just like locks on doors only stop honest people.

---

So we shouldn't lock doors then at all. Think about what you're arguing then - if locks don't work, why should we lock our houses?

quote:

---

imprisoning the entire population would eliminate murder completely. Yet we don't do it. When you figure out why then you will have your answer.

---

How does that answer the question?

Let's start simple - this is your argument.

A) We have laws

B) Criminals don't follow laws.

Then why have laws in the first place?

Instead of giving me a non-answer about imprisoning the entire population, just answer the question.

You're effectively advocating for anarchy.

quote:

---

You think you've hit on some kind of gotcha, but you are really just ignoring the fact that any new gun laws would violate the rights, liberties, and freedoms of millions of Americans, while doing nothing to address the actual problem, because the new laws will be ignored just like the laws against murder.

---

If the laws against murder are ignored, why have them?

Answer the question.

As you've essentially claimed, laws do nothing.

Why on earth have laws?

It's not some gotcha - just answer the question.

You can say it's a violation of liberty and what not which is completely different to essentially arguing for the removal of laws altogether.

I mean I'm not advocating for guns to be taken away or banned or anything. That's impossible.

I think some sort of universal background check + making sure they've not got a history of violence (in the case of the Uvalde killer, dude was killing cats and in the case of the Parkland killer, the guy had an incredibly violent history).

quote:

---

I'm not sure these data can be used the way you're using them. For example, is it clear that "4728 homicides committed by white Americans" doesn't include Hispanics? That's an honest question - I don't know the answer.

---

It's why I removed all the people who identified as Hispanic when I calculated the 2.8 figure.

quote:

---

Also, your assumptions about how to distribute "Other" is guesswork. So the 6700 total would be interesting to get into.

---

It would be 5360 assuming that Hispanics are 20% of the total sample - removing 20% of that for this calculation.

quote:

---

I think you know how to round, so if we're going to round it's 2x, not 2.5x. Then we talk about the 2.9, but I'll give you credit for at least trying to take into consideration factors that the FBI/others make it difficult to do.

---

LINK

Homicide rate in France in 2019 was 1.3.

So around 2.23x to be accurate.

And note that France's homicide rate will be skewed upwards significantly - they've got a lot of poor Muslims and Blacks who live in inner cities.

quote:

---

Also, opposite all the calculations about gun violence, you need to take into consideration how often a law-abiding citizen uses a gun to defend him/herself, their family or property. This doesn't require shooting a perpetrator. It only requires a perpetrator aware of, or concerned that, their prospective victim is armed. How do you suggest we measure this?

---

I mean that's complicated because:

a) Some people have used surveys and tried to extrapolate out but that is never accurate. It over-samples certain demographics in the studies I looked at.

b) We don't know whether an individual would have needed to use a gun if they knew their criminal wasn't armed. For example, the studies above - they seem very suspicious considering 70% of America doesn't own a gun yet looking at the studies above (Kleck for example), you'd think non-gun-owning Americans live in a completely different America than gun-owners.

quote:

---

the availability of guns fuels violent crime, so you wanted to compare western Europeans to (white) Americans (European descent). Including some number of Hispanics from Mexico/Latin America would skew results.

---

I removed Hispanics from the data I calculated as much as possible.

Again, the only government-provided data averages homicide rates from 1976 to 2005. We can look at the French average from 1976 to 2005 (which would have been between 1.5 to 1.9x compared with 4.7x) but that's obviously old data.

You also have to bear in mind, France is by far one of the most dangerous Western countries. Other European countries like the UK have homicide rates of around 1 per 100,000 (and the US non-Hispanic white homicide rate would be 2.8x).

quote:

---

Also, your assumptions about how to distribute "Other" is guesswork.

---

Guess work is the only work I can do to get there.

I can't find actual data on things other than that.